Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s assessment of his housing application. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complained about the Council giving insufficient priority to his housing application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Mr X has been given the opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X applied to the Council for housing because his current private rented home is too small for his family needs. The Council refused to give him higher priority for overcrowding because he moved from a social housing tenancy in another area to a private rented home too small for his needs.
5. The Council’s housing allocations policy says that where someone has moved to a property which is too small for their needs, they will not receive additional priority because they have caused the circumstances by their own actions. This means that other applicants who have become overcrowded whilst at their address would be disadvantaged without this policy.
6. Mr X asked for a review of the decision and the Council carried this out. It did not change its decision because it considers his current banding is correct for his situation. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
7. In this case the Council followed the policy correctly and the banding should not be changed.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman